Obama Supporters, please act...

Like Democrats

I’m from Illinois.  I am very involved in state politics here in the prairie state and voted and volunteered for Senator Obama in the 2004 election.  

I am also a Hillary Clinton supporter.  Why am I not supporting Senator Obama?  Simple, really.  I feel like he hasn’t done enough for us as our senator.  He has done the bare minimum to help other Democrats here in Illinois.  He could have used his status to help local Democrats win and he has largely chosen not to do so.  He could have used his uniting skills to help the dysfunctional Illinois state government better serve the people of Illinois.  He has chosen not to.

All that being said, if he wins the nomination, great!!!  As a Democrat, he will by MY nominee for President of the United States.  Some of you have no idea what that means.  Whatever is needed of me after the nominee is named is exactly what they will get from me.  I was a Bradley delegate in 2000 and an Edwards delegate in 2004 (I didn’t get to serve obviously, but those were my candidates).  When Gore won the nomination, I traveled to 3 different states to volunteer for him because Illinois was not in play.  When John Kerry won in 2004, I made phone calls from my home to dozens of states and spent most of my weekends in Wisconsin because again, Illinois did not matter.  That is called being a Democrat.

Who are you people with hatred for Hillary Clinton?  The conservatives in this country have spent the last 16 years tearing down Senator Clinton and her husband, and now it appears that some so called "Democrats" believe all of the right-wing lies.  I just don’t understand that.  

If you are not a Democrat, we welcome your vote.  We need your vote.  I just don’t want non-democrats influencing how we as a party operate.  The Democratic Party is very important to me.  If Senator Obama is our standard bearer then I will line up behind him and bust my behind for him.  I expect the same from all of Senator Obama’s supporters if Senator Clinton is the nominee.  If this is not your attitude then you are not a Democrat.  

(I still like Senator Edwards.  I love his story and I love his passion.  I just prefer Senator Clinton this time around)

•  I'm not an HRC supporter, but thanks saying this.

  by Bartimaeus Blue on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:13:27 AM PDT

  •  just remember...

    ......if senator clinton is the nominee, you can bet the independents and republicans are not going to support her, and if by chance she is elected you can forget gaining and holding any kind of congressional majority, she wont be any help in marginal races where traditionally republican areas have democratic inroads possible and will actually prevent such inroads, her negatives are too high to do anything but maintain and probrably ramp up the partisan divide in the populous and that is the last thing we need in these troubling times.Shes doing a great job right where she is and is more of an asset in the position she holds in the senate. And she will most probrably not even get all the supporters of her primary opponents for these very reasons even if they have to vote in opposition or stay home...of course all these results stated above could be what some may have in mind for the future to some end or another, but i doubt theres informed consent among supporters about it, if they have even considered any of them...

    by TAPayne on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:22:37 AM PDT

    •  You just proved the diarist's main point...

      ...with this comment: "...And she will most probrably not even get all the supporters of her primary opponents for these very reasons even if they have to vote in opposition or stay home..."

      If supporters of a primary opponent is not able to support the Democratic nominee then they are not acting like Democrats.

      Now, I know, I know, the immature among us are going to screech 'don't tell me what to do!' but the sad, inescapable fact is that if you do not vote for the Democratic nominee then you are handing the government back to the GOP.  And if supporters of any candidate believes that it is a more principled position to sit at home and sulk than to support the Democratic nominee then I find it very hard to believe that they are acting like Democrats.

      by Terrapin on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:54:34 AM PDT

      •  And that bolded text will change zero votes

        Perhaps voters will act as voters first and not, as you say, as Democrats.  Imagine that!  If the Democratic Party offers up a candidate people do not like, fewer and fewer people will want to be Democrats.  Damn!  If there was only some sort of way the Democratic Party could avoid this death spiral.

        Well, whatever the answer is, it's certainly not going to come by listening to deeply concerned Democratic-voting citizens!  The answer shall come from the DLC.

        by Quicklund on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 09:53:48 AM PDT

        •  Agreed, but, again, you are missing the point...

          ...which is that it would help everybody if Obama supporters would stop acting like Republicans in their willingness to distort everything that the Clintons say.  Obama supporters (and, to a lesser extent, Edwards supporters) are using GOP-style dirty-tricks to inflame and divide the Democratic Party.

          Now, I am sure that you feel that you are justified in doing so and probably believe that Clinton drew first blood but the path of destruction that is following in your wake is indefensible.  Barack Obama himself would be the first to tell you that you are behaving in a manner diametrically opposed to the unity that he claims to profess.

          by Terrapin on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 10:19:52 AM PDT

          •  White is black and up is down

            I get it.

            Senator Clinton is campaigning in Florida today aganst her pledge.  Obama's fault.

            The Clintons launch a whispering camapign on Masrassas; Sen Obama's fault.

            Such helpless victims, the Clintons.

            Obama is drawing unprecidented, mind-blowing numbers of voung and undeclared voters to the Democratic Party. The Clintons try to supporess votes in IA and NV.  But it is Obama that is tearing the Party apart.

            Black is White.  Up is Down.  Hillary Clinton a natual-born leader.

            Riiiiiiiiiight.

            by Quicklund on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 10:45:57 AM PDT

          •  you misunderstand...

            ...i make no distortion, just cold hard fact, Senator Clinton while may perhaps unify the party will not unify the nation, the polarization will keep us in the same quandary we now face, and may lead to losses in the legislative branch if crossovers go back to voting republican in response to a clinton administration, and it takes more than democratic votes to win the presidency lets not forget, she is well positioned where she is now in the senate to do the most for the party and the nation...

            by TAPayne on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 03:50:13 PM PDT

      •  that statement reflects...

        ...the number of crossovers who have voted democrat but will not if senator clinton is the nominee, while im fairly sure alot or most of the democratic supporters of her opponents may thats not enough, not enough to win maybe and certainly not enough to bring about the concensus we need to move forward effectively, feel free to consider all the points i made above as they pertain to unifying the nation

        by TAPayne on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 03:36:43 PM PDT

    •  Do you read tea leaves?

      Do you have a future globe?

      by Jjc2006 on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 09:18:50 AM PDT

    •  just remember

      Assuming, that you are for Obama, a point that you
      choose to keep to yourself. Perhaps you may be right
      in what you say about Hillary.

      But if your choice of candidate wins the nomination
      Just Remember!

      The Repugs will eat him alive and spit it out in
      front of you. Things will get fucking nasty if your
      choice wins.

      I am a true Democrat and frankly, you make no sense.

      by Ole Texan on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 10:05:57 AM PDT

      •  you are...

        ...entitled to your own opinion ...but i cant see where my assertion deviates from sensibility, or how you could make such an unqualified statement as to say i made no sense...its not like i made some wild claim like "if thered been a back door at the alamo, there'd be no state of texas" i merely asserted a forcast of events in the political climate we face in the election and the ensuing administration under alternative circumstances, such as a clinton nomination where every republican with an axe to grind will come out of the woodwork and speak out and vote and where independents will either balk or falter, and if you think the repugs will spit nails over senator obama or edwards, just imagine what a hornets nest senator clinton will stir up and see the other scenarios pale in comparison, and thats not even considering the case that she has coming up against her will go to trial right in the middle of the general election, her nomination can only further harden the division in the populous where one side will demonize the other throughout

        by TAPayne on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 04:16:49 PM PDT

•  1st diary, one comment

  There's a 5-diary limit before you get to lecture. Check the FAQs.

  by droogie6655321 on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:14:21 AM PDT

  •  Now, now.

    You know there are dozens of newbie Obama people jumping on board every day writing all kinds of lecturing shit. Let's strive to be fair.

    by Jim J on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:18:55 AM PDT

    •  Sure

      And I call bullshit on them, too.

      Asshattery knows no partisanship or stripe. It's truly egalitarian.

      by droogie6655321 on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:20:59 AM PDT

    •  I'm more offended that an Illinois political

      insider is offended by campaign nastiness.  He surely isn't part of the machine. :)  

      by Yoshimi on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:21:24 AM PDT

    •  fair enough, jim j

      this diary is no more crappy than the crappiest of the Obama boosterism that's been demonstrated by a very few DKos noobs
      ====================================================
      then again, maybe it is crappier

      by wystler on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 10:08:57 AM PDT

  •  I guess

    it's true.
    Ignorance is bliss.

    by Jjc2006 on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 09:19:20 AM PDT

    •  Hmm

      Tell it to my therapist.

      by droogie6655321 on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 09:24:13 AM PDT

•  Funny. I am acting like a Democrat.

  I'd argue that the Clintons are not.

  by wmtriallawyer on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:15:12 AM PDT

  •  Amen to that. n/t

    by Dreggas on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:30:43 AM PDT

•  "Please act like democrats"?

  I thought supporting Obama fell into the category of "acting like democrats".  

  by Inland on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:15:33 AM PDT

  •  This diarist needs to rethink his position.

    All I have to say to this is, "um excuse me? I've probably done more to help democrats win than you ever will."

    This diary is my exact problem with Hillary supporters, summed up in a written paragraph.

    Don't tell me how to act.

    by Philly Ed on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:23:36 AM PDT

    •  For someone who says they live in IL

      And is a Democratic "insider" they certainly don't know jack about what Obama has done in his years in the IL State Senate.

      by MadAsHellMaddie on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:34:37 AM PDT

      •  can you say...

        ...whispering campaign?

        by TAPayne on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 03:53:41 PM PDT

•  Rather than repeat myself, I'll just

  link myself.

  by nobody at all on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:16:24 AM PDT

  •  Preach it, brother.

    by tampa traveler on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:23:47 AM PDT

•  Um, Obama kinda was the most requested

  speaker for campaigns in 2006 (and he complied and spoke). I'm not sure how that's not helping Democrats win.

  by DemocraticLuntz on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:16:41 AM PDT

  •  He's also been great in Illinois.

    He got Melissa Bean elected to Congress in '04, sending busloads of volunteers to her district.  (Though she's cast some disappointing votes since then.)  That's a standout example.

    Obama has definitely stayed involved in Illinois politics and made endorsements.  I'm not really sure what the diarist is talking about.  Is there a race that he feels Obama didn't do enough in?

    by psericks on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:34:24 AM PDT

    •  Both you and

      Democratic Lunz must cease and desist providing facts.  They interfere with the theme of this diary.

      by gchaucer2 on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:44:30 AM PDT

•  It's an interesting phenomenon.

  My take is that many people on this site were calling themselves "Democrats" more in opposition to Bush than any real party ID.

  This is really morphing into a site for independents, regardless of the site proprietor's boilerplate disclaimers.

  I also think many of the younger posters have internalized the right-wing, anti-Clinton memes in the media, hence the willingness to adopt specific right-wing phraseology from Fox, Drudge, Limbaugh, etc., like Billary, Shrillary, etc.

  The worrisome long-term trend is that for so many Obama supporters, the brand is not the Democratic Party -- but Obama himself.

  I don't like cults of personality no matter which side they're on.

  by Jim J on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:17:51 AM PDT

  •  It's all they ever knew.

    by Salo on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:19:49 AM PDT

  •  If Obama wins, he makes them into Democrats

    because voting for the Democratic party in successive elections tends to have that effect.

    by DemocraticLuntz on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:22:01 AM PDT

    •  "Expand the base" seems to be alien to

      Clinton supporters.

      Judging by their recent strategy, they seem more concerned with dividing the base than adding to it.

      by Yoshimi on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:24:47 AM PDT

      •  Well, I see your concern about that

        I would certainly say right now Obama is bringing a lot of new Democrats into the fold, and that's awesome.

        But I think your definition of base is too limited. It's not just African Americans that have to be recognized.

        Latinos are vital too, and Hillary does very well in that group -- better so far than Obama, though certainly there's time for that to change.

        So in a sense, Obama is really running the "base" campaign.

        by Jim J on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:29:19 AM PDT

        •  How about young voters? Or 1st time voters?

          by Daaaaave on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:32:13 AM PDT

          •  Um, well, that's what I just said.

            by Jim J on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:36:52 AM PDT

            •  huh? what!?

              you said that young first-time voters are the base?

              by wystler on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 10:12:08 AM PDT

    •  I don't disagree

      See, I support one candidate but don't actively hate the other. That's the difference. I can see your point and support your guy in the general, no problem.

      by Jim J on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:30:11 AM PDT

    •  You didn't live through Nixon-Carter-Reagan.

      There are parallels here that suggest that just the opposite will occur if Obama is a disappointment.

      by inclusiveheart on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:32:39 AM PDT

  •  "cults of personality"

    maybe things would also be more civil around here if you guys didn't act like such condescending assholes.

    by Stroszek on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:22:31 AM PDT

    •  Look in the mirror and say that again. n/t

      by scoff0165 on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:24:17 AM PDT

      •  "I know you are but what am I?"

        Brilliant, and typically immature.

        Clinton supporters need to stop whining and realize that people in their camp contribute just as much to the toxic atmosphere around here.

        by Stroszek on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:26:42 AM PDT

        •  We are vastly outnumbered

          and have to be aggressive. Yet another reason to marginalize, I guess, but whatever.

          by Jim J on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:27:38 AM PDT

          •  no, you're not

            when it comes time to bashing Obama, the Clinton/Edwards coalition outnumbers the Obama people. For a week there, every other diary was an anti-Obama hit piece. Lately, Clinton is getting a taste.

            by Stroszek on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:31:11 AM PDT

            •  I'm sorry, we're on Daily Kos now

              MyDD is at www.mydd.com

              by Jim J on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:31:52 AM PDT

              •  check the straw polls

                by Stroszek on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:33:17 AM PDT

                •  The straw polls here are pro-Clinton?

                  Oh, Frabjous Day! Was I in a coma?

                  by Jim J on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:36:10 AM PDT

                  •  Edwards + Clinton

                    soundly outnumbers Obama.

                    by Stroszek on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:36:30 AM PDT

        •  I'm no Hillary supporter,

          but unlike you I don't go around calling the supporters of other candidates "condescending assholes."

          by scoff0165 on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:30:36 AM PDT

          •  "condescending asshole" is an accurate descriptor

            or someone who accuses all of a candidate's supporters of being delusional cultists.

            by Stroszek on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:32:42 AM PDT

            •  Like I said before.

              Look in the mirror.

              by scoff0165 on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:33:31 AM PDT

              •  the Pee-Wee Herman defense

                doesn't defuse my point, sorry.

                by Stroszek on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:36:07 AM PDT

                •  No you defused it yourself.

                  It took no effort at all from me.

                  by scoff0165 on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:42:04 AM PDT

            •  Not all, just some

              Look, there are some serious Obama Kool-Aid drinkers here and you know it. It's OK, they're not evil or anything, just immature. And it's not all Obama supporters, obviously.

              by Jim J on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:35:30 AM PDT

              •  there are serious Kool-Aid drinkers for everyone

                I remember after the NH victory, some Clinton supporters were on here celebrating Obama's defeat as some sort of surrogate rebuke of their ex-husbands. I've spoken to nutbags here who honestly think Obama is going to help the corporations round us into extermination camps.

                Yes, there are nutbags but be careful when you generalize.

                by Stroszek on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:38:34 AM PDT

                •  I agree

                  by Jim J on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:41:41 AM PDT

                  •  Every candidate has Kool Aid drinkers

                    I think we can all gather round the camp fire and trade our Kool Aid drinker stories whether they be Obama Kool Aid, Edwards Kool Aid or Hillary Kool Aid. Kool Aid Delusion is an equal opportunity phenomena.

                    I think we ALL need to dial it back, watch our rhetoric and let stuff go.

                    by byteb on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:47:46 AM PDT

                    •  I agree with that as well

                      by Jim J on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:49:30 AM PDT

    •  "younger posters"

      Shut up, kid. Let Bill and Jim J and the rest of the elders make your choice for you. Don't question it.

      by Daaaaave on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:33:14 AM PDT

      •  Do you mean elders

        like Ted Kennedy?

        by kayfromsouth on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:40:41 AM PDT

        •  Heh

          Ted believes "fairy tales" can come true and it can even happen to you when you're young at heart.

          by Daaaaave on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:42:07 AM PDT

          •  OK, that was funny

            by Jim J on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:43:33 AM PDT

          •  Very funny! Good line ...

            and for the generation raised on Disney,

            "When you wish upon a star
            Makes no difference who you are
            Anything your heart desires
            Will come to you"

            without pain, without work, without commitment, without team spirit.

            by mrogers2007 on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 09:04:13 AM PDT

            •  oh, my, yes

              Lyrics by Ned Washington, who was a huge help to many of the grifter insiders that prey upon the rest of us.

              Thanks, Disney!

              by wystler on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 10:16:45 AM PDT

  •  The Democratic party is not an exclusive

    club.  Go ahead and keep pushing people away, it has been working wonders for Republican electoral success since the early 90s.

    by Yoshimi on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:23:46 AM PDT

    •  The 43% mandate

      by Daaaaave on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:33:47 AM PDT

    •  I'm not the one saying I won't vote

      for a certain candidate if my choice doesn't get the nomination.

      So you see, I ain't pushing anyone away from anything.

      by Jim J on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:34:29 AM PDT

  •  I honestly think

    that I see you saying "Billary/Shrillary" more than any other individual commenter around here.  Odd, huh?

    by Pegasus on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:23:57 AM PDT

    •  Mine is a lonely crusade.

      I don't think it's appropriate language for a nominally Democratic blog. Sorry that you disagree; obviously you're in the majority.

      by Jim J on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:26:58 AM PDT

      •  The Clintons have put themselves

        into a difficult spot.  Their undeniable history of triangulation combined with their questionable tactics against Obama have alienated segments of the party.  One could argue, in fact, that you could just as easily call the Clintons "nominally Democratic."

        by Pegasus on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:31:09 AM PDT

        •  Honestly there's an argument to be made

          either way.

          Look, I prefer Hillary but would happily vote for Obama in the general. I cannot for the life of me figure out why a similar construct is so fucking difficult for so many non-Hillary supporters here.

          by Jim J on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:33:12 AM PDT

          •  It's simple for me

            do I want possibly 8 more years of the shit we've had for the past 16? That is the partisan bullshit where nothing gets done and the dems cave to the republicans or do I want something new? I want something new. I don't want to relive the 90's, we don't have time to do it. We need to fix a lot of things and I don't see Hillary, as the lightning rod she is, being the one to get that done regardless of how "tough" or "experienced" she is.

            One of the easiest ways to beat an opponent is to disarm them before they even have a chance to strike. Nominating Hillary basically gives the republicans not just an ammo dump but the entire arsenal of a small third world country.

            Add to that one needs the ability to persuade. You don't win an arguement by brute force, you win it through persuading the other side that your points are more viable and better than theirs. Not by being an ass about it or being condescending but by treating them as equals and talking to them as such. For me Obama does this better than Hillary ever could or would. This was how I felt about her even in the 90's.

            She talked down to people. She acted like she knew what was best for me and I should just accept it. Obama speaks to me and talks to me, he says maybe I don't always know what is best for you personally but together let's find out.

            by Dreggas on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:39:10 AM PDT

            •  I can respect that

              You have obviously thought things through and come to a decision that works for you. I just hope that after 8 years of Bush you can see the importance of getting a Democrat in the White House even if that Democrat may not be Obama.

              by Jim J on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:41:15 AM PDT

              •  I can see the importance

                of getting someone in office who can get things done. I also live in California so I can, most likely, safely vote for someone other than Clinton. I am a democrat, and even if she has a D next to her name I don't view Clinton as one.

                by Dreggas on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 09:02:35 AM PDT

                •  i hope you understand the urgency

                  ... of allowing Paul Stevens (and Ruth Bader Ginsburg) to retire honorably, and on their own chosen timetable.

                  We failed Stevens in 2004; also in and 2000, with notable assist for the other side from fellow Justice O'Connor, who, at the time, had no qualms about retiring. Gotta suspect that Sandra has occassional problems looking in the mirror.

                  by wystler on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 10:20:18 AM PDT

                  •  It's another reason

                    why I am working and will work to ensure Obama is the nominee come november.

                    by Dreggas on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 10:28:15 AM PDT

                    •  hear hear

                      plenty of time later for reassessment by whichever group is feeling edgy now

                      meanwhile, lotsa work on the current task

                      by wystler on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 10:53:50 AM PDT

            •  yes, that is a good argument for him

              persuasion is important. He can do that well. I read Redstate and even they say they wish he was running on their side.

              by dotcommodity on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:56:54 AM PDT

        •  Her voting record is solidly Democratic and

          virtually identical to Obamas. As Jim J says,

          Look, I prefer Hillary but would happily vote for Obama in the general.

          why do you have to be so divisive? You can be for Obama without hysterical untruths about Hillary's excellent Senate record (except for her one Iraq vote).

          The best argument for Obama is that he has a teflon-like ability to deflect criticism from the RW. That is a real asset to us Democrats.

          Conversely, what is scary about him though is his Reagan-like snooziness on the actual details (based on what he said in the debates), saying he'll delegate the actual job to somebody undisclosed...(well, who? Cheney?) that I absolutely trust that Hillary will not do.

          by dotcommodity on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:53:41 AM PDT

          •  Yeah, except that little Iraq thing.

            Not exactly something I sweep under the carpet, you know?  Same thing on K-L.  Screwing up badly on your very biggest calls is not easily forgivable.

            by Pegasus on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 09:00:04 AM PDT

            •  Ha, then you must be a Kucinich supporter!

              He is the only candidate in this race who has not, in some way, supported the Iraq war.

              Get over that issue.  It's just used as a bat to beat our own candidates over the head.  And in any case, in the GENERAL ELECTION you can bet that the Democrat will be bragging about his/her support of the Iraq vote!

              Grow up.

              by mrogers2007 on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 09:24:33 AM PDT

              •  Get over it? Grow up?

                C'mon.  A grown-up's perspective (mine, given that I'm a grown-up) is that the war should have never been authorized, let alone fought, but that once we were there we had an obligation to clean up our mistake in a responsible way.  Obama adhered to those standards.

                The biggest foreign policy mistake in American history is not something we should "get over", now or ever.  Thousands of Americans have died, and hundreds of thousands (maybe millions) of Iraqis.  This will, and should, haunt America for decades.

                by Pegasus on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 09:51:01 AM PDT

                •  Hey, you're talking to someone ...

                  who spent days on the phone back in Spring 03 urging everyone I could find in Washington and my own state not to support that war.

                  Do not forget (and I know I'll get flamed for this) there is a HUGE pro-Israel lobby.  I also spent days on the phone trying to get Joe Lieberman unelected.   Sometimes all that we can do is not enough.

                  Any case, I don't need any lectures about the badness of the war.  

                  All three Democratic candidates say they will end the war.  So what's to fight about?  It's the other side (have you been listening to them at all?) you should fear.  

                  And a good way to help us beat the other side is to stop squabbling over something that is a non-issue when it comes to choosing a Democratic candidate since they're all pretty close on this issue

                  Well actually, they're not.  JOHN EDWARDS has pledged to get the troops out immediately.  Obama and Clinton have not.

                  by mrogers2007 on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 10:06:28 AM PDT

                  •  The fight's about the fact that

                    on the biggest legislative call they were ever asked to make, HRC and Edwards (pardon my french) completely fucked it up.  And now they're asking me to hire them to be POTUS.  I'm supposed to forgo a performance review here?  Please.

                    by Pegasus on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 10:10:49 AM PDT

                    •  So ... you're a Kucinich supporter?

                      Or do you find something -- anything -- in Barack Obama's record to suggest he would have gone against the grain and voted against the war resolution?    if you can find something I'd love for you to share it.  Because to me the guy looks pretty conventional and middle-of-the-road.    Sure, he gave a speech.   That's easy when you don't have to actually vote.  Or would he have voted "present" (sorry, cheap shot I know).

                      He does take money from lobbyists (unlike John Edwards) and he has NOT pledged to take all the troops out inside a year (and Edwards has).   So...

                      I mean, if you're using Iraq war votes as a reason to say Obama is better than the others, well he wasn't even in the Senate at the time so it's a pretty weak argument.

                      by mrogers2007 on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 10:32:32 AM PDT

    •  Theres plenty of Obama-based namecalling too

      Obamaton, Oblahma, hell even Osama.

      by Unseen majority on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:33:34 AM PDT

  •  Look at my user name

    Why the hell do you think I'm a Democrat?

    by IhateBush on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:27:50 AM PDT

  •  I think people have been much more

    influenced by the BushCult of personality leadership style than they realize.  I had a friend argue to me the other night that he is supporting Obama because of how it will look to the rest of the world to elect a black man whose father was a Muslim.  He said that the role of a president beyond image is totally unimportant and that it did not matter what happens domestically in this country under any president.  The only thing that mattered to him he said is Obama's image being projected to the rest of the world.  It was a really interesting conversation.  I disagree completely because I think that what happens here on the domestic front will have a lot to do with our ability to rebuild relationships around the world, but it was interesting that he saw the President as nothing more than a figure head.  Now Obama may be much, much more than that and may deliver all kinds of wonderful stuff in terms of concrete improvements, but what bothered me the most was that my friend did not have any expectations on that level.  If we do not push our elected officials to do better, they generally will try to skate by no matter how earnest they are and so this low standard I think might be a problem.

    by inclusiveheart on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:31:25 AM PDT

    •  Great comment, totally agree

      by Jim J on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:33:40 AM PDT

    •  either would do that though

      both Clinton and Obama represent not white men and I can see both in a G-8 summit looking good for America like that.

      I disagree with your friend that the job is merely a mascot for the nation though.

      What will make them like us again is if we stop murdering the rest of the planet: On that I totally trust Hillary, who is uncompromising on coal. Obama's more coal friendly stance makes that rather more iffy.

      by dotcommodity on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 09:03:48 AM PDT

  •  What complete hogwash

    That's just a bunch of BS.

    So let me get this straight, supporting Obama because you like Obama makes you not a Democrat?

    But I suppose supporting Hillary or Edwards because you like one of them, doesn't mean the same thing, right?

    That is not only irrational and illogical, it's complete bullshit.

    What you mean to say is:

    |"I don't like that Senator Obama is inspiring people to vote for him over the candidate I want, so I am going to pout and make a bunch of false accusations directed at him and his supporters because my feelings are hurt"|.

    by DAVE DIAL on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:43:53 AM PDT

    •  Nah, you didn't get it straight

      there is a segment of Obama supporters who are just as I described, and many, many who do not fit that profile whatsoever. Nice try, though.

      by Jim J on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:48:56 AM PDT

      •  I got it straight

        I got it straight, because if those same supporters were supporters of your candidate, you would see them as potential lifelong Democrats instead 'cult of presonality victims'.

        John Edwards if my second choice, and if he were drawing the people together like Senator Obama has, I would be behind him 100%.

        You are trying to castigate the same people who could help Democrats win the White House in November. That doesn't seem like something a 'strong Democrat' would do.

        So no, I didn't get it wrong. As much as I would have liked it if it were different.

        by DAVE DIAL on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 09:01:36 AM PDT

        •  This isn't fair

          I'm supporting Obama, but Jim J has been nothing but respectful to me in dialogues about it, and his point is very well taken.  I have picked my candidate, and it's not Hillary Clinton, but I seem to be one of the rare Obama supporters on this site who doesn't feel the need to use scorched earth rhetoric against all the other candidates.

          I like them all, and it's good, because I'm going to have to work to get one of them elected and it might not be my guy.

          by stephdray on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 10:02:24 AM PDT

          •  You think that I

            You think that I used 'scorched earth rhetoric'? Are you freaking kidding me?

            I am responding to this:

            My take is that many people on this site were calling themselves "Democrats" more in opposition to Bush than any real party ID.

            This is really morphing into a site for independents, regardless of the site proprietor's boilerplate disclaimers.

            And then this:

            The worrisome long-term trend is that for so many Obama supporters, the brand is not the Democratic Party -- but Obama himself.

            I don't like cults of personality no matter which side they're on.

            You think that is appropiate? You think I am being 'unfair' with my responses to that type of trash?

            I don't care how many 'respectful dialogues' you've had with him, to not take offense to that kinf of trash is unbelievable.

            by DAVE DIAL on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 11:02:54 AM PDT

            •  This is kind of an example of what I mean

              I never said that you were using scorched earth rhetoric.  I said that I was one of the few who didn't.   I wasn't talking about you, but rather, the context of the discussions I've had with Jim J.

              The way you've made it about you, and then decided that fairly reasonable fears about Obama's appeal are "trash" that you must take offense to, are what I'm referring to.

              Obama's got the magic.  He doesn't need people taking offense when anybody points it out.

              by stephdray on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 11:10:34 AM PDT

              •  Oh, I see

                Oh, I see.

                So when Jim says this site is "morphing into a site for independents, regardless of the site proprietor's boilerplate disclaimers" and that "many Obama supporters" are not for the "Democratic Party -- but Obama himself", and then compares Obama and his supporters to a cult, that is prefectly fine.

                But when I point out that it's not true, it's "not fair".

                I see.....

                Like I said, it's "not only irrational and illogical, it's complete bullshit".

                Period.

                by DAVE DIAL on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 11:28:59 AM PDT

  •  With all due respect

    I certainly cannot speak for every Obama supporter, but I think every camp has its share of "cult of personality" supporters.

    I think the problem - what you're overlooking - is that many of us Obama supporters are Democrats, Democrats well aware of voting records, policy stances, and history.   We've gotten behind Obama not simply because he talks a good game, but because he has a history.

    It was his history - the sum total of his elected and personal experience - that ultimately moved me to Team Obama.

    Let's be honest and take a step back... Obama has long legislative history -- more than either Hillary Clinton or John Edwards.  He has consistently been ranked as strong progressive by virtually any interest group you want to point to -- pro-choice, environmental, civil liberties, labor -- you name it, he gets high grades.

    Sure - any candidate, and Obama is no exception - has regrets here and there, but let's be upfront... Barack Obama has a history of progressive stances and backing progressive policies.

    Frankly - I just don't have time to "correct" the Obama "cult of personality" types because I'm too busy combating the false memes that Obama is some sort of stealth conservative, Reaganite, or less-than-strong defender of choice, etc.  

    by zonk on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:46:39 AM PDT

    •  Well join the club

      of being busy combating false memes. I don't know what to tell ya, it's a full time job for Hillary supporters here. I guess I'm a glutton for punishment.

      by Jim J on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:48:13 AM PDT

•  So the veteran Illinois political activist

  comes to this site and lectures us on civility toward the Clintons.  I find it quite funny.

  I would say you have a pretty thin skin if the treatment of Clinton bothers you.  Come on, you are a political insider from a state that is notorious for campaign nastiness.

  That said, I hope Clinton eeks out a third place finish in Illinois next Tuesday.  I was handing out Obama Vote Early literature this morning and it was flying out of my hands. :)  

   

  by Yoshimi on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:20:25 AM PDT

  •  So diss him completely then

    ignore that he said he would vote and campaign for obama if he was the nominee, be condesending and dismissive.

    That wworks great for Obama's campaign.

    by Osiris on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:47:19 AM PDT

    •  I think the problem

      here is that diarist undermines his/her own credibility... I mean - I can't see how anyone can reasonably blame Obama for the state-level problems IL Dems are having.

      It feels like strawman-city -- again reinforce this idea that "we" (being Obama supporters) are claiming he's some sort of God, in order to blame him for problems he has nothing to do with (IL state-level Dems disfunctionality).

      by zonk on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:49:34 AM PDT

      •  Yes, I said the same thing

        in a comment downthread about US Senator's are usualy not involved with State politics.

        I do have to say though that  calling obama God is not what the most fervent Obama supporters do...thats a bit extreme so its easy to knock down.

        But the talk about " new Politics"  uniting the country and how he is the only one able to inspire millions to do it. etc is probaly what most people are refering to.

        by Osiris on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:59:54 AM PDT

      •  Are you from Illinois?

        I mean, it seems to me that someone actually from the state and involved in their politics has a right to give their perspective and have it hold just a little authority.

        by stephdray on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 10:03:18 AM PDT

        •  steph, I'm an Illinoisan

          ... and I doubt the diarist's bona fides as an "activist"

          I don't doubt that he was on the ballot as a delegate (Edwards; Bradley). But there was virtually no active presence in Illinois in 2004 for Edwards (beyond fundraising within ITLA channels), and the Bradley campaign wasn't exactly burning shoe-leather here either.

          The donor class is important, of course. Perhaps our diarist's activism is in this area. Or (s)he may be a member of a connected political family.

          Here's the killer:

          I feel like he hasn’t done enough for us as our senator.  He has done the bare minimum to help other Democrats here in Illinois.  He could have used his status to help local Democrats win and he has largely chosen not to do so.  He could have used his uniting skills to help the dysfunctional Illinois state government better serve the people of Illinois.  He has chosen not to.

          This could not have been penned by an honest person who is familiar with Democratic Party politics and state government in Illinois. (I know you were here, Steph, but don't quite recall how long ago you left for the Eastern Seaboard.)

          by wystler on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 10:30:55 AM PDT

          •  Because you're from Illinois

            I feel that your opinion about this also carries quite a bit of authority. I lived in Chicago when I was in law school, which is longer ago than I care to recount.  I have absolutely no bona fides when it comes to Illinois politics :P

            by stephdray on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 10:33:49 AM PDT

            •  i can keep a secret

              i've got a library of old SULLIVANS LAW DIRECTORIES around the corner ... if i needed to know badly, i'd take a peek

              by wystler on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 10:36:13 AM PDT

  •  Veteran "activist"

    If diarist were a political "activist", (s)he would have been a candidate-for-delegate for a different campaign in 2004. There was zero Illinois activism for Edwards in 2004. None.

    by wystler on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 10:24:04 AM PDT

•  more Clinton martyrdom

  blech

  by Stroszek on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:20:59 AM PDT

  •  Lifetime should make a movie...

    about Hillary Clinton's flameout in this primary.

    Pass the Kleenex.

    by tampa traveler on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:26:24 AM PDT

    •  Starring Meredith Baxter...

      ...as Hillary Clinton. Sunday-afternoon Lifetime fare from now until the sun explodes.

      by turnover on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:33:20 AM PDT

      •  A solar explosion

        could hardly be sufficient to end the juggernaut of TV for women.

        by tampa traveler on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:40:05 AM PDT

•  It amazes me how many HRC supporters

  act as if any issues people have with the Clintons are just figments of a wingnut's imagination and they themselves have not exacerbated the situation with any actions of their own.

  How about this, you ever had a relative who stayed in your house that didn't no when it was time to leave? It could be your favorite uncle/aunte in the world and sooner or later you would be sick of his/her face and resent his/her inability to take a hint and get the hell out.

  Can you at least comprehend that?

  by bam bam on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:23:06 AM PDT

  •  So, Clintons fail the "ask Amy" test?

    Wow, what convent did you grow up in?    What do you think BEING PRESIDENT entails?  

    Bill Clinton lowered GHWB's skyrocketing DEFICIT to ZERO.  And he did that not on the backs of the middle class, but by taking it from the wealthy.  

    If he had done nothing else during his whole 8 years, that ALONE should have some value to the ungrateful Clinton-haters among us.  

    Since I suspect the most vitriolic among you are the under-25 crowd,  let us just Clinton's economy allowed your parents to send your sorry *sses to college!

    by mrogers2007 on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:36:05 AM PDT

    •  I'm 35

      Just because you're a obsequious fanboy for the cult of personality of Bill Clinton don't assume those of us who aren't don't remember EVERY aspect of the 90's. Some of us just don't like to drink kool-aid as much as others.

      There is not one of you in entire HRC camp including yourself that has the moral high ground when it comes to vitriol. I remember alot issues and people in the 90's the Clintons threw under the bus to protect their precious stay in the White House and their legacy was a conservative senate, congress, judiciary and president.

      Ungrateful? I'm grateful to FDR, JFK, Truman and any of the truly great Democratic presidents of 20th century who knew how to make a lasting positive impact on the country in addition to helping the country grow during the times of great wars and Cold Wars.

      Oh and by the way, fuck you.

      by bam bam on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 09:19:50 AM PDT

      •  That's great!

        Going on your screen name alone, I'd say you're definitely from the Jack Ass generation, no matter what your chronological age is.

        That's fine.   I love Jack Ass but I wouldn't take those guys' opinions on politics very seriously.

        So whom, exactly, did the Clintons throw under the bus?  I'd like to know.  

        Also, I'm not a Clinton supporter, nor even one of their obsequious fanboys ... but I like that phrase and maybe I'll use it in my next flame against Obama supporters.

        I'm an Edwards supporter.  And if you could take some time out from name-calilng and read the candidates' POSITIONS, you'd see he's he's a lot closer to the FDR/Truman legacy than the others.

        by mrogers2007 on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 09:29:53 AM PDT

        •  I'm an Edwards supporter too

          and frankly you are in no position to lecture about name calling. Not to mention the gratuitous usage of CAPITAL LETTERS in order to communicate your point in a CONDESCENDING manner.

          by bam bam on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 09:35:30 AM PDT

        •  Furthermore

          my comments were about the Clintons alone and how I feel about them, other candidates notwithstanding.

          by bam bam on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 09:37:23 AM PDT

          •  Well then heck, let's smoke the peace pipe

            shall we?

            No more capital letters, I promise.

            Mike

            by mrogers2007 on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 09:42:22 AM PDT

            •  Whew! That was fun?

              by Methinks They Lie on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 09:51:35 AM PDT

              •  It was rather